Talk:Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan

Latest comment: 13 days ago by JackTheSecond in topic Contradictory information regarding explosive bullets
Good articleAttempted assassination of Ronald Reagan has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 29, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 30, 2007, March 30, 2008, March 30, 2009, March 30, 2010, March 30, 2011, March 30, 2012, March 30, 2015, March 30, 2020, March 30, 2021, and March 30, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Requested move edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. This specific rewording came late in the discussion, and there haven't been too many comments on it in particular, but the point about ambiguity and consistency with similar articles seems sufficient to go with this title instead. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply


Michael Deaver? edit

Reagan's Deputy Chief of Staff, was standing just FEET AWAY from where Hinckley was shooting, and he had much involvement after, why not MENTION him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.48.255 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply


Reagan assassination attemptRonald Reagan assassination attempt – Should first name be added? George Ho (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a vote. Just saying oppose doesn't count for anything. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Consistency with articles about assassination attempts on people. In all cases I observed the full name is employed. Given the subject's name is Ronald Reagan and not Reagan I don't see any issue here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Reagan may well redirect to Ronald Reagan but no one's going to propose moving the Ronald Reagan article to Reagan. There's a certain sense in using the full Wikipedia article name in other articles which relate to that person. A person's article should be where their Wikipedia name (if you will) is decided and other article's should follow it for consistency. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per BBD --Երևանցի talk 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: Omitting his given name gives the article title a tone that is too informal. Per Blue-Haired Lawyer, we don't have the article about the person at Reagan, although he is the primary topic for that term. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Qualified support I don't think the entire form of the title, and similarly situated titles, works well in English. I am certainly not implying that anyone who knows who Ronald Reagan is will think that Ronald Reagan attempted the assassination of anyone, but that is the way the title naturally parses: Ronald Reagan acting as the perpetrator of an assassination attempt on another. To put it another way, an article about John Hinckley, Jr.'s acts could easily fit under the title "John Hinckey Jr.'s assassination attempts". As such, I think all articles like this one should be at either the form "Attempted assassination of _____" or "Assassination attempt(s) on ______", which makes it clear the target of the assassination is the person mentioned. My qualified support is only that I certainly think the title should use his full name, for reasons suggested by others, regardless of the ultimate destination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The article on the man is at Ronald Reagan, so it seems logical to use that name in articles about him too. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per BDD. It is usual to use first and surname when naming someone for the first time. Move to Assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan per Fuhghettaboutit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regurgitating POV edit

As someone is very keen on including the claim that Reagan had a physique like a 30 year old body builder, here are a couple of useful references:

200.104.245.226 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good grief. No, no one claimed that Reagan could have won Mr. Universe at the age of 70. That said, evidence supports the conclusion that Reagan was in remarkable physical shape, presumably including his share of muscles. How do we know this? BECAUSE HE SURVIVED A VERY SERIOUS GUNSHOT WOUND AT THE AGE OF 70, made a complete recovery, and served two full terms as president. "30 year old body builder" is exaggeration, but one that graphically communicates this to readers. Given that it is from a cited, reliable source (and stated ten years after the fact; it's not like the speaker was trying to burnish the reputation of someone still in office), as long as it's stated as a quote (so readers know Wikipedia is not saying it's necessarily the literal truth) it's acceptable to have in the article. PS - "I don't like it" is not reason by itself to remove something from Wikipedia. Ylee (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, clearly he was in good physical shape, and the article clearly states that with reliable sources to back up the claim. Adding hagiographic puffery and reporting it as if it is fact contravenes NPOV. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Image of Hinckley gun edit

The gun displayed at the regan library is not the real weapon used in the attempt. its a replica. for clarity suggest saying so. Source of this is the head of PR for the library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.6.231 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The six bullets in the photo seem to be live. If so, they can't be the ones that were fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.32.1 (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am thinking of removing it. It is not a RG-14. It is another type of cheap german Saturday Night Special. Here is a pic of the actual gun: https://damnuglyphotography.wordpress.com/tag/rohm-rg-14/. Figured I'd say it here before I deleted it (though I don't know how to upload and get this pic instead because I'm new to Wikipedia). glm.moulton 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

_West Wing_ similarities edit

It would be relevant to add that in _[The West Wing]_ episode "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen (Part I & II)", fictional President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet is similarly diverted from the White House to George Washington University Hospital after the Secret Service Agent discovers that one of the fired rounds did indeed hit the President. YearginSM (talk)

Actually, it sounds like the West Wing's portrayal was largely inspired by this assassination attempt. I remember reading that one of the advisors to the show was a member of Raegan's security detail from the incident; not to mention Josh's injury was similar to Raegan's, the same confusion over "who's in charge" takes place, and the diversion to the hospital. This isn't a great source, but it's a start: westwing.wikia.com Zahan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cover up edit

The Secret Service Cover Up section contains the sentence: 'Wallison added, "My view now would be that as soon as there is a problem and the president was shot at and hit, the people in the White House were wrong." ' This sentence, whether it is accurate or not, is meaningless. Speaking about the risk of a future possiblity (danger to the president) can never be shown to be wrong by the event's occurance, this is post hoc ergo propter hoc (fallacious) reasoning. In addition, Wallison apparently mixes present tense with past tense: his view now would be as soon as there is a problem and ... was shot ... people..were wrong. Absolute rubbish. It should be removed, it adds *nothing* to the article.Abitslow (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the entire section because it is a copyright violation. I would have removed it even if it wasn't because it is highly WP:UNDUE and it treats what is essentially a solitary op-ed piece as fact. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Release date edit

Someone added July 27, 2016 as John Hinckley's release date but he has not been released yet. That is the date they ANNOUNCED he will be released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.178.1 (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Location of Timothy McCarthy's Injury edit

I don't have access to the two articles cited for the location where he was shot but I found a source that states otherwise in the Wikipedia section. He states "I was hit in the chest and the bullet went into the lung, liver and diaphragm. And the common picture shows me grabbing my abdomen, but that’s down where the liver was when it went through the liver. That’s where the pain was at the time, but actually I was shot in the chest" Source: http://www.voanews.com/a/victims-recall-reagan-assassination-attempt-30-years-later-118953314/174624.html

I'm not aware if this has been in one of the edits and I'm not submitting it. I'll leave that for anyone who chooses to do with it. --Inthe80s (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The sequence of shots is wrong. edit

The first two shots are correct. The 3rd shot did not overshoot and miss, the 6th shot did. The 3rd shot hit the agent in the abdomen. The 4th shot hit the bulletproof glass, the 5th shot hit off the side of the limo and struck the President, and the 6th and final shot was wild and missed high. The correct sequence of shots is in a youtube video detailing the attempt. RPoling (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hinckley in photo montage edit

Where is John Hinckley in [1]? --Viennese Waltz 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Over aggressive edit of Portrayals in Popular Culture section edit

@User:Sundayclose: What is your proposal for revising this section? I added two small music examples as a minor edit both of which were in the same style of the previous music examples and of other examples in other sections. The edit done in your recent revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan&type=revision&diff=981162556&oldid=981160597) has gone ahead and removed a much larger section of this assassination in pop culture than what I touched claiming it's "unsourced". I normally wouldn't dispute this but other "unsourced" examples remain in the subsections above your edit (e.g. Books and Stage subsections). Was this a selective edit or did you not want to include the other similarly unsourced items?

For context, I was following the precedent set in both this article as well as other articles on this topic like in Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture. If you think everything needs a citation, that's fine, I'll just restore the previous edit and add some cn tags where appropriate and begin to add references to these items. Cmahns (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

The items were reverted per WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That's not "over aggressive"; it's policy. Feel free to restore with citations.
As for "other 'unsourced' examples remain in the subsections above your edit", feel free to tag, discuss, or remove any unsourced information in any article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Based on the edit in 981226656, I think you are splitting hairs on this. I tried to keep the revision explicitly around the Reagan specifics of the Suicidal Tendencies song and removed the Sadat mention from the original line and based on your message you're now implying because Hinkley wasn't mentioned explicitly in the song it shouldn't be on this page. The article is about the assassination attempt on Reagan, not Hinkley himself. I didn't try to add I Desire by Devo for example, which makes no specific mention of Reagan as the lyrics are lifted from Hinkley's writings.
For the WP:V claims, the small mentions of lyrics, like "I Shot Reagan" which is the alternative title of this song, falls under fair use as per my understanding of WP:Lyrics and poetry (see one of the examples cited of "good" lyric use, Hey_Ya!#Composition, there is a direct quote of the lyric "What's cooler than being cool" and "fellas" lacking external citations but are pointed out because they're relevant. As an aside, I can further link this song to other items discussed in the current text article as the lyrics also mention the character in the song shooting Pope John Paul Francis II and John Lennon which are both mentioned in the current revision of the article, along with the mention of shooting Anwar Sadat that was present in the first revision of this as Sadat fell victim to an assassination in the same year in a similar manner, but chose to minimize it to just Reagan for my recent revision.
Again, I'm following wiki precedence set by similar articles of assassination attempts and assassinations of US Presidents like the aforementioned JFK assassination link and for other references in this same article that lack explicit citations. The only difference I see between that page and this one is that was broken out into its own page because of the size. I know you're a prior editor on that page and you haven't disputed every other uncited source there or outright removed them. I would like to resolve this as I do believe these songs and other mentions removed belong on this page, namely given Reagan's influence and infamy in the 1980's punk scene and how his assassination influenced certain artists. Cmahns (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I continue to disagree that the edit is properly sourced. Please read WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". When there is no reference to Hinckley or his attempted assassination of Reagan, you are synthesizing your personal conclusion that the song is explicitly about Hinckley or the assassination attempt. That's not "splitting hairs"; it's clearly based in policy. This is a Good Article; to maintain that status proper sourcing is mandatory. Feel free to restore the edit with a better citation or a consensus here. And once again, the fact that I haven't disputed something else is not really relevant. I am not required to dispute everything to remove one edit; there's no need for us to repeatedly argue that point. You or anyone, however, are free to tag, discuss, or remove any unsourced information in any article. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

James Brady initial injury edit

There is no citation, nor any really available information to suggest the bullets Hinkley fired had a "small explosive charge" in them. The notion itself off having explosives in a .22 LR bullet is ridiculous. 2600:1000:B042:96F3:B962:F769:ECEF:2324 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

What if we said that in the aftermath, what happend to Hinckley like noe? e.g. he post guitar videos edit

a Degesh000 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Links edit

There are numerous issues with the sources in this article:

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/23/60II/main287292.shtml The page cannot be found

https://legacy.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2001/mar/010320.reagan.html The page exists, but the links to the recordings are dead

https://web.archive.org/web/20090331205241/http://www.maniacworld.com/Assassination-Attempt-President-Ronald-Reagan.html There is no video

A thorough review of all the source material might be in order 81.105.46.48 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Contradictory information regarding explosive bullets edit

The opening of the article contains a statement that reads as follows:

There is a popular misconception that the .22 ammunition used by Hinckley contained an explosive charge. No such ammunition exist, instead it was most likely a hollow point or soft point ammunition.

However, in the part of the article discussing the shooting itself, we have the following:

In just 16 minutes, agents found that the gun had been purchased at Rocky's Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas, on October 13, 1980. It had been loaded with six "Devastator" brand cartridges, which contained small aluminum and lead azide explosive charges designed to explode on contact; the bullet that hit Brady was the only one that exploded. On April 2, after learning that the others could explode at any time, volunteer doctors wearing bulletproof vests removed the bullet from Delahanty's neck.

These statements are obviously contradictory; since the latter is supported by two references, perhaps the initial statement that the explosive ammunition didn't exist should be removed. hellkat_ (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Information was added in the last two edits of the article and was confirmed to be false. Additions have been reverted. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply